• November 21, 2013: improving "Senior Day"

Senate report: 11/21/13

     This meeting was not terribly eventful. I’ll keep this short.

     Diana H, our Curriculum guru, made a pitch for Wendy Gabriella for that State Assembly Seat in her neck of the woods. Tracy F briefly supported that, as did I. “She needs money; she’s attempting to defeat people who tend to drag their knuckles,” I said.

     We were reminded that some programs are undergoing “program review,” and some due dates are rapidly approaching. I think Dec. 13 was one of those.

     As you know, there is an ongoing effort to review and revise board policies (etc.). Kathy S directed our attention to AR6125, which concerns field trips and such. Instructors who use field trips (student travel) should be aware of the proposed revision and come to the next meeting prepared to argue whatever.

     The group approved recent revisions (none of substance) in the Planning and Decision-making manual.

     Our own Dan D was approved to serve on the Budget Committee (I think that was it).

     Kathy made a strong pitch for faculty participation in these important committees. Faculty seem to be the only persons who are free to speak their minds at these committee meetings, so it is important that they be present. WE’VE GOT WATCHDOGGING TO DO. Your service on such committees (beyond your committee obligation) can be used for flex credit.

     There was a discussion of a room shortage problem re students taking tests. The spaces now used are inadequate. We’ve been using room in the library. Kathy agreed that she would pursue this matter with Linda F (VP for SS). “A permanent solution needs to be found,” said one counselor.

     We discussed “Senior Day.” How can we improve it? I asked if we could at least have a “moratorium on bouncy houses.” In the past, you see, Senior Day seems to have involved such attractions as In-n-Out Burger trucks, bouncy houses, and worse.

     Some stared at me with incredulity. I insisted that, yes, we’ve had bouncy houses.

     Somebody way to my left said, “What’s wrong with bouncy houses?”

     I tried to answer but I got interrupted. Just as well. I didn’t want to identify that fellow as a Philistine in public.

     Evidently, if “topless day” brings in students, then there will be topless day.

     Somebody informed us that IVC’s Senior Day is the favorite among local college “Days.” Oh good.

     Diana yammered a bit about some new regulations. It seems that we need to develop a policy about something, I know not what, ‘cuz I can’t read my notes. I wouldn’t worry about it.

     Roopa M (maven of Ac Affairs) spoke about our review of the faculty hiring priority list process. Also, we need to come up with a policy for School reorganization, just in case that ever gets problematic. There’s still work being done re the “wait list system.” Roopa reported that Dan and Summer’s recent IVC2IVC event was “absolutely wonderful.” She wants to ask them to come back, do it again. Something like that. Soon, there will be an event concerning “classical street painting.” Classical? Yep.

     Kathy S (Senate Prez) reminded us of her promise long ago. She said that, after the Accred scramble, she’d return to the issue of Early College. You’ll recall that the senate has held that program in low regard. It was originally foisted upon us by the President, over our objections. Efforts (supposedly) have been made to respond to early criticisms. So, now, we’re working on a survey to find out what faculty think, nowadays, of the Early College Program.

     Somebody said something about basic aid requests being due Dec. 6.

     Kathy provided a report re budget issues. Bob U and Kathy have urged the Budget Group to shift away from resource requests to ongoing and programmatic features. Everyone seemed to like that. Money should automatically be set aside for technology, etc. We’re trying to organize and coordinate diverse requests.

We’re trying to plan for the unplanned, said Bob.

     OK, that’s about it.

--R

• October 31, 2013 Senate Meeting

Senate Notes October 31, 2013

Colleagues – here are the notes from yesterday’s Senate meeting  

1. A. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS:  Jeff Wilson , Karima Feldhus (Representing Craig)

1. B. CURRICULUM: – Diana H. -  1) C-ID – If your course is part of  a degree of transfer,  then you must address the descriptors in the CID website. C-ID.net     2) Go to :  Home Page – then - Articulation officer  button – click – then you will see the newsletter – it will give the discipline status report to show which discipline is coming down the pike for descriptors.  You then need to make sure your courses match up. Please check this regularly.  3) Descriptors are where you can view what a bare bones course outline of record should look like for each course.   Become involved and be part of the process of designing the descriptor for your discipline. 

1. C. SCHOOL REPORTS:   1) Model UN – swept 9 awards at Washington DC  conference against mostly 4 year schools. 2) Tutoring Center – now available for all subjects.   Contact Brooke Choo with ideas and suggestions.   

1. D. STANDING REPORTS:  1)ACCREDITATION:  report sent in.   Coming in a couple of years – a self study – so make sure you are paying attention to surveys etc – also, be a part of the process when it begins .  2) FOUNDATION – seems Davit  has found the lost $60k – district accounting lost it – has to do with district accounting practices that seems to differ when they deal with IVC foundation accts vs Saddleback foundation accts. There wasn’t a very clear explanation of where it was while it was lost and where it was found  3) SCHOLARSHIP –  Look for upcoming workshops for the readers of the scholarship essays so they can be normed and help with consistency.  Brenda and Kathy are working on getting those going.  Kathy will talk to Kurt about this well. 

1. E. JUNE MCLAUGHLIN – COMMUNITY COLLEGE PATHWAY TO LAW SCHOOL – California State Bar in the process of designing and setting up a pathway for students at 2 years colleges to work towards law school.  This projects resulted from the Bar seeing the discrepancy in the demographics of students getting into law schools in California vs the demographics of the state.  One statistic showed that students from community colleges had a  much smaller chance of completing the goal of law school .  This program would provide agreements and classes so that students had a path through the system .  The California State Bar will work with about 20 community colleges to set this up and to participate with.  The program would call for  2 years at a community college,  4 years at a 4 years school  and 3 years at 3 law school. This program would include agreements for guaranteed admission or preferred admission.   Our college would provide a set of courses (that we already offer – including political science, critical reading and some AOJ courses in the program.  June estimates no or very little cost for the college.  She is going to apply and asked for a Letter of interest from Academic Senate to add to her application. The Senate approved.

1. F. HIRING COMMITTEE – Submitted the English Committee names. All hiring committees Senate approved and will be submitted to the President.

1. G. PLANNING AND DECISION MAKING MANUAL – final draft will be posted soon.

1. H. SMOKING POLICY – IVC  - all bodies have approved , and if all is ago at Saddleback – next step is board approval  - December or  January.  

1. I. INTERNATIONAL STUDENT PROGRAM – No new reports.

1. J. COLLEGE COUNCIL and new BUDGET COMMITTEE and the new ACADEMIC PLANNING AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITEE new version of CC and BC  committee have place for 2 faculty members- last one only had one –CC  meets 2^nd and 4^th Wednesdays, BC meets the other two Wednesdays.  APT one faculty needed – 2^nd and 4^th Mondays 2-4. Please send names of nominations to senate.

1. K. SUMMER CLASS SCHEDULE- June 2 ,  (10 week) June 16 (8 week) and June 30 (6 week ) A with August 8^th end date. These dates help target students from high schools and Cal States with differing schedules. 

1. L. REPEATABILITY -  At Plenary – coming up – Performance Classes- -request for State Academic Senate to make rules  and guidelines that allow for credit and not for credit students to be concurrently enrolled in the same section of a course thus supporting the viability of performing arts programs. Supported.

1. M. ACADEMIC AFFAIRS REPORT – work group for  process of space utilization – email asenate to join.  Waitlist design team – had a couple of meetings – let Roopa know if you want to join. 

1. N. VP REPORT – Looking at the DRAC budget draft – will let us know.

• October 17, 2013

The October 17 meeting of the Academic Senate Rep Council:

     I’ve highlighted (in red) elements that strike me as particularly important.

     Please know that among the items below are:

·         A budget report from Fiscal Services (Davit)

·         Proposals concerning the Academic Calendar

·         School (of Humanities and Languages) reorganization (approved)

·         Proposed expansion of the International Students Program

     Kathy Schmeidler, Senate Prez, announced a host of upcoming state senate events. Anyone interested?

     COLLEGE-WIDE FORUM. Kathy alerted us to an upcoming College-wide forum (Oct. 29, 2-4 p.m., A123). I was glad that, for once, a forum is scheduled outside of prime teaching time.

     A forum is scheduled, too, re Institutional Effectiveness and “district wide goals.” One can find the relevant document at “Inside IVC.”

     During School reports, I noted, as per custom, that our School “remains disgruntled.” I added that “if all goes according to plan, disgruntlement will be better represented in future.” That was an allusion to our School’s impending SPLITTAGE into two schools (Languages/Library Services & Humanities/English).  (More about that later.)

     FOUNDATION FUNDS DISCREPANCY. Senate officers muttered something about the Foundation: “we still don’t know anything about our finances” there, said Kathy. Kathy noted  that the situation has “raised eyebrows.” Evidently, there is a discrepancy involving $60,000. An audit will get to the bottom of that. –Something about the Pro-IVC matching funds. They “can’t get the two sets of books to align.” I dunno. (In the past, Kathy has suggested that nothing nefarious is afoot; rather, blatant nincompoopery is afoot, probably.)

     Roopa Mathur, Chair of Ac. Affairs, said something about a scholarship review meeting on Oct. 25 (concerning a particular scholarship; I didn’t get the name). Anyone want to join? There’s a scholarship benefit set for Feb. 6.

     Curriculum maven Diane H said that we’d be hearing soon from the SLO liaison people. Expect gentle nagging, coming soon.

     REPORT FROM FISCAL SERVICES. We moved up item 13: “Report from Fiscal Services.” Director of Fiscal Services Davit K presented an “overview of the current college fiscal status and projections for the next 3-5 years.”

     As you know, a year ago, Prez Roquemore hit the panic button over the curious “discovery” that projected revenue would soon be outstripped by expenses (owing to the steady rise of the latter). What to do?

     At first, Glenn seemed headed for unilateral cancellation of planned faculty hires, but the Academic Senate got a whiff of that and engineered some serious pushback. The upshot: a new committee was formed to review budgeting and look for revenue sources. SPOBDC (the college planning/budget oversight entity) started its discussions of the ongoing shortfall threat and a new committee (BARC?) was formed to root out reforms, new revenue, etc.

     Then, to the surprise of many, Prop 30 passed, offering some relief to budget pressures. Plus there was a “mandate block grant” (sorry, don’t know what that’s about).

     PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS. Davit laid out his “planning assumptions,” which are tentative, it seems. (I got the feeling that everyone in the room but me understood the curious tentativeness of a “planning assumption.” Me, I thought a PA is an assumption one makes while planning. Guess not.)

     1. One “planning assumption” concerns FTES [fulltime equivalent] enrollment growth. (FTES is a measure of instruction: One takes the number of student instruction hours and divides by the load of a full-time student. It’s the amount of instruction, understood as a headcount, assuming, contrary-to-fact, that each student takes a full load.)

     We experienced no growth in 2011-12, and slightly higher growth thereafter. Our planning assumption is that we will experience 2% growth per year in future. Sounded reasonable.

     2. Our assumption re COLA is 1.57% for 2013-14 and no COLA for 2014-15. If we receive COLA then, it will be passed on to salaries.

     3. The third assumption was some kind of “other” category. There will be a 2.4% increase (in expenses) due to step increases. There will be a 5% increase in health insurance costs.

     We’re assuming a $1 million contingency reserve effective 2013-14. This reserve will be taken seriously—it is “untouchable” money set aside for a rainy college. (The seriousness of this reserve was one of the achievements of one of the committees that looked, with horror, into how Davit and crew have handled our finances in recent years.)

     4. Planning assumption 4 is expansion of the International Student Center. In fact, among the other items for this senate meeting was discussion of this proposal, originating from college strategic planning committees, to “increase the capacity” of the international student program. I.e., do we want to enroll still more international students? The demand exists. It is likely that this expansion would enhance revenue. Arguably, it would have other advantages. Hence, the advocacy.

     I asked if the college is assuming that such expansion should occur. “No, no,” I was assured, “no such decision has yet been made.” That’s to be determined. (I have my doubts.)

     According to my notes, Davit reported that the number of international students (ISs) for 2012-13 is 664. Projected for 2013-14 is 730. (That’s assuming expansion, I guess.)

     If we expand IS (in the manner proposed), revenue for 2014-15 are projected at about $500,000. For 2015-16, it would be about $834,000. For 2016-17, it would be about $1,386,000, with a (IS) headcount of 972.

     The senators have discussed the expansion of IS during the last two meetings, and it did seem to me that there is considerable hesitation among them, or some of them, regarding this proposal. How would this affect our completion rates? What would happen to the program over time? Are there hidden costs with this increase in the IS population? Etc.

     Everyone seems to take turns offering the alleged pearl d’wisdom that, if we do this thing, we should NOT do it for the money. (Please excuse my cynicism: I believe that certain powerful people are motivated by revenue alone. This thing is gonna happen.)

     Thus far, the senate has received two recent administrative “visitations” re this proposal, and it seems to me that they are determined to make this thing happen, though, officially, the expansion is a matter still to be discussed, etc. More discussion will occur at the next senate meeting, and no doubt the senate will be asked to give it its invaluable imprimatur.

     What do you think?

     Davit seemed to say that Prop 30 yielded a major one-time source of revenue in the amount of $863,000. Plus the Mandated Block Grant (some such thing) yields $240,000 per year.

     Davit asserted that the net cost of a new full-time faculty hire is $60.576; we’ll be pursuing 16 hires for 2014-15.

     The plan: for every 2% growth in FTES, we’ll add 3 full-time faculty.

     Davit flashed lurid graphics on the wall.

      I asked if Davit’s presentation is available online. It is. You should be able to find it “in this meeting's folder” (see Inside IVC; Academic Senate). I highly recommend that you look at Davit’s presentation.

     There was some discussion of the “faculty obligation number” (FON). “What’s that?” I asked. No clear answer, though it seems to be a bit like the old 75/25 full-time/part-time goal (which has long since been abandoned)—only it is a requirement, not merely a goal. And, of course, the number is much lower than 75/25.

     Item 6 was “Board Policies and Administrative Regulations”—which, as you know, are constantly being revised, etc. We espied the usual list—nothing new has occurred—and nothing new has been added to it.

     Item 9 was the all-important “planning and decision making manual”—i.e., proposed changes to that.  Faculty are invited to “join the workgroup.” Contact Kathy.

     ACADEMIC CALENDAR FOLLIES. Item 10 is the 2015-16 Academic Calendar, a bit of a hot potato. “Each college is bringing forward a recommended 2015-16 calendar to the District-wide Ac. Calendar Committee.” The two colleges seem to be ad odds on this score. SC's thinking seems driven by obeisance to their celebrated (goddam) nursing program.

     We reviewed proposals offered by the two campuses. Evidently, the SC Academic Senate approved a proposal last week. We espied it and snickered unreservedly. When we made substantial changes to our calendar a year or two ago, SC adjusted to it, but they were and remain unhappy about that. In particular, they dislike our “start time” in the spring (Flex Week starts Jan 12). Their proposed calendar reflects that.

     So there are lots of calendar proposals floating out there, including 3 of our own. There was considerable (bewildering, to me) discussion about those 3 proposals. (I don’t really live in time, I guess.) Brooke and others seemed to like version A, according to which the Fall remains the same but commencement is a week earlier and summer is shorter. We approved version A: 19/0/1.

      Note: evidently, whether our current lack of a final week is satisfactory is NOT an issue at this time. "Who thought it was?"

     SCHOOL REORGANIZATION. Item 12 was “School Reorganization.” Contrary to what I implied at Wednesday’s School meeting, the senate didn’t get a chance to consider this proposal at the last meeting. But it got to it at this meeting. The proposal to split the School into two Schools passed 19/0/0 (i.e., unanimously).  We specified that the change would start in the Fall of 2014.

     There is a desire among senators to establish procedures/processes for School splittage and the like, and we very nearly confronted a proposal to develop that process and only then to apply it to our School’s splittage proposal. But we cleverly seized upon ideas to separate the two things. So, in the end, the Senate decided to approve the splittage and then, additionally, to have Academic Affairs start working on a process. (Thanks Bob U and Priscilla R.)

     We can be clever bastards.

     Item 11 was saved for last: VPI Craig Justice presented the “OSH” part of the proposal to expand the International Student Program. He showed us a handout, and that was about it. I do believe that the upshot of the handout was that, if we accept this expansion proposal, the ratio of resident/non-resident FTES will remain about the same: 2011-12, 7% non-resident; 2012-13, 8% non-resident; 2013-14, 9% non-resident.

     Next time, we’ll get more info.

--Senator Roy

If you have any questions, feel free to contact Melanie. (Well, Melanie or me.)

• October 3, 2013 Senate Meeting

Senate Notes October 3, 2013

1. A. GUESTS:  Karima Feldhus, Jeff Wilson, Arleen Elseroad, Lisa Holmes (scheduling analyst)., Geno Drake (Research Specialist), Barbara B.

1. B. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Meeting turned upside down – getting to new business first  and then back to old business to see if we can get though more of the agenda. 

1. C. SCHOOL REPORTS:   Music department: season is now open for shows. Art exhibition – Amy Grim.  Counseling – Transfer fair. Roy mentioned the  poll/survey on  “values” continued our school’s “disgruntlement” – Kathy agreed – a good reason for disgruntlement.   Library – library workshops up and running.  JSTOR digital  data base available again. Success Center – Online Tutoring in the discussion stages – let Brooke know if you have thoughts – this is meeting a requirement in the Accreditation Standard 2A. (providing equal tutoring for online students). Political  Science- MUN putting on /hosting a conference on campus – 250 students coming – October 12 and 13^th.  

1. D. ACCRED REPORT – Being proof-read , formatted, and completed.  On schedule.  Senate voted to approved the Senate president to sign on behalf of the faculty once it is complete.  Was submitted to the Board at their last meeting – met with compliments and no comments for improvement.  

1. E. PRO IVC – Opened October 1^st – one change – instead of open only until spring – it is open through commencement.  Keep scrupulous records – online records not enough.  “ineptitude” with the foundation money – according to Kathy. 

1. F. EARLY COLLEGE _ Meeting on October 8^th with principal of Beckman High, Robert Melendez will represent the Senate, with – ATEP at 3:30-5:00 – email Tammy Bostwick for more information

1. G. DISTANCE EDUCATION TASK FORCE:  Discussed merging DE and Technology Task Force, but decided against it.  Will be meeting with Curriculum to develop a process with DE and Curriculum development.  Working on improving the language for online orientations – clearer language for students . Encouraging more classes to be offered online.  

1. H. CURRICULUM – Diana out– no curriculum information today.

1. I. BPAR – No meeting since last Senate meeting, so no update.

1. J. OUTREACH  - COLLEGE NIGHT –Ann Akers – Provide materials to her or talking points or attend – all are welcome.  Just call Ann at X5432. 

1. K. INTERNATIONAL STUDENT PROGRAM –  Arleen Elseroad and Jeff Wilson presented the idea of expanding the International Student Program citing advantages, cautions, and the next steps. Arleen mentioned the increasing revenue with this program.  We have 700 students already in the program.  She mentioned the high interest in Irvine  because of UCI and the reputation of Irvine as a safe city.  Should we support growing the program?  Growth in three years could be up to 1000. But, can we put the infrastructure in place to serve them and make them successful? They are limited to six semesters and they must take 12 units per semester and then transfer.  Other countries are seeing our CC system and see it is a bargain and are using it.  This growth isn’t counted in our limited FTES – this is extra – over and above how much the board lets us grow.  Jeff: the program provides diversity and enriches our campus. From ESL standpoint – ESL – could extend it’s ESL offerings  for ALL students using those monies . PROPOSAL: Jeff and Arleen are proposing  to do research before a decision is made and including some of these questions in their research– how are these students placing, how long is it taking them to complete> completion rate, etc  - Jeff and Arleen want to get all the information. Including our TOFL score (which allows them into our schools) – if majority are placing way below college level then we need to look at our test scores.  Current data shows one third of these students are enrolled in basic skills classes and that they complete transfer in 3 years – about 20%.  Degree/program completing – no data compiled yet. Cap? Where are funds that we get directed? More info to be shared at the next senate meeting– data and budget info.  Apparently, Craig has promised the office of instruction will support the programs impacted.  Steve seemed cynical. Some data will be posted to the Academic Senate website for review – in the forum.

1. L. FULL TIME FACULTY HIRING PRIROTIY LIST:  - Senate unanimously approved the Tier 1 and Tier 2 positions of the 15 position list and asked in their motion to have the Dean’s reconsider their Tier 3 positions to include the LD position. If that doesn’t happen, the Senate further moved to have Kathy ask Glenn to consider adding a 16^th position for the LD specialist.  It was mentioned that this position serves the entire college and shouldn’t be shouldered by one school or one department.   Also mentioned – the college has been without an LD special – and this   will be the second year.

• September 19, 2013 Senate Meeting: DRAConian deliberations

Meeting of the IVC Academic Senate, 9/19/13 

            I’ve highlighted what strikes me as really important .

            Brooke C briefly addressed the group regarding the college’s evident lack of preparedness for the power outage that occurred Wednesday afternoon. Others seemed to agree that the incident revealed our lack of preparedness. Priscilla R, of the safety committee, said she would bring those concerns to that committee.

            Evidently, there is a snafu regarding representation of part-timers on the Academic Senate. Those who physically execute senate elections and senate officers evidently interpreted the rules (regarding who votes for reps) differently. The upshot: we seated the two part-timers who ran (or who would have run) as the part-time reps.

Ac. Sen. Prez Kathy S’s “executive report”: 

            The district has adopted “goals.” Now, the colleges are supposed to work on goals and objectives in relation to the district goals. (They’re pretty silly.)

            There was some discussion of some of the committees that figure prominently in our governance hierarchy (at the college) and the circumstance that they proceed “cloaked in secrecy.” The committee most notorious for said cloakery has now been relegated to an “advisory” council. (In my view, governance at IVC has grown so complex that it cannot be comprehended and, more importantly, it has no hope of working. Adjustments and corrections are akin to rearrangements of deck chairs on the Titanic.)

            Recently, the Capital improvement committee met. They discussed the recent issue regarding planned usage at IVC to create “swing space” for ATEP—necessary in the transition to full use of the latter campus. 

            Since this was about ATEP, everyone’s eyes glazed over.

            The BAAR(C) committee will be self-evaluating. (It’s the basic aid resources allocation committee. Basic aid refers to the special “extra money” the district amasses owing to its reliance on local property tax funds rather than state allocations. The trustees have attempted to live by the prudential dictum that such money should only be used for “one-time” expenses, not for ongoing expenses.) (Note: one is no longer to use the term “basic aid.” It has been replaced by “locally funded.”)

            Then there’s DRAC—the district resources allocation committee. It exists to achieve an equitable and rational distribution of resources among the colleges. Peter M and Mark M, among others, were important players in the development of DRAC (15 years ago) and, by and large, DRAC has succeeded in keeping resource allocation issues to a mere low boil. There appear to be two issues: (1) DRACians (or some thereof) feel that it would be best to pursue these allocations on a three-year model rather than year to year—in part because the existing process/system is rigid and doesn’t deal well with emergencies and the need for reserves, etc. Kathy expressed the hope that the board will “loosen its grip” and be “less rigid” about allocation decision-making with its set proportions, etc. They hope to appeal to the board’s conservatism. (2) IVC is expected to experience significant growth in the coming years; not so SC. And this needs to be recognized in DRAC’s deliberations. Adjustments would seem to be appropriate.

            I reminded the group that, in recent years, our basic aid (i.e., “local funding”) gravy train has been “under threat.” Does that remain true? Answer: yes. In fact, however, owing to the circumstance that key legislators have tended to be from “local funding” areas, things have generally gone our way. Keep in mind that “local funding” is a much more common model among the K-12 schools, and this circumstance has yielded protection as well.

            Kathy mentioned that, over the years, some groups have advocated creation of a seat on DRAC: e.g., the Faculty Association (union), the classified. They have not prevailed. Kathy argued against any increase of seats on DRAC based on such considerations as: the undesirability of fragmentation into smaller groups. As thing stand, there’s a fair level of trust among DRAC members. That could easily be lost. The 10+1 “reliance” legal status quo (i.e., the law giving to Academic Senates authority in 10+1 areas) is what gave us a seat on DRAC. Do we want other groups on DRAC who cannot provide that kind of justification for membership? (I’m not sure I’m doing justice to Kathy’s reasoning here.) 

            Kathy asked that faculty “think about this.” Do we want to keep membership on DRAC as it is? Should we allow or advocate change in membership?

VP Bob U’s report:

            BSR (Budget Solutions Recommendation Committee) has met (that’s the committee charged with exploring budget ideas—incited by the budget “crisis” of one year ago). Evidently, the committee has reviewed Diane Oak’s area (Marketg/Communicat/Brdcast Sys ) (presumably re expenditures, potential savings, etc.). Also Keith S’s area (HealthSci, Kinesiology & Athletics). In his area, they’re doing a “cost analysis” comparing ownership of vans to renting buses (for events). There was discussion of the factoid that we “underfund” maintenance and coach salaries—depending chronically on ASIVC, etc. Problems with maintenance  of the gym. 

            The all-important Strategic Planning Oversight & Budget Development Committee (SPOBDC) has met. They are contemplating a discussion of the college’s “values.” Possibly a values survey. A “values” statement?

            SPOBDC met with the college budget manager, Davit. (You’ll recall that, previously, some senate leadership opined that Davit’s strengths do not include planning.) Davit provided various “budget scenarios,” though that info was “hard to read.” (Natch.) Evidently, we are budgeted to go forward with 15 hires, and this will require adjustments. Apparently, SPOBDCians have persuaded Davit to proceed in a manner that preserves a $1 million reserve. (This is a matter of “planning,” evidently.) 

            There’s much discussion of the possibility of raising revenue by expanding the International Students Program. I seem to recall that, in the past, some reps have expressed concern over seeking to increase revenue in this way. We must approach this carefully. At this meeting, reps wondered aloud what such an increase would mean for the college. VPI Craig Justice and VP of SS Linda Fontanilla will attend the next senate meeting to discuss this.

Chair of Academic Affairs Roopa M’s report:

            Roopa reminded us that there is a “user’s guide” available for those who seek to pursue Professional Development money. She noted the successes of recent lectures in our two lecture series. She said something about a presentation about “steam punks.” That was intriguing.

Chair of Curriculum Diane H’s report:

            Things are changing, and some of this is inspired by demands made from “above,” i.e., the UC system. As things now stand, if we make any changes to degrees (and whatnot), we need to provide a “narrative” describing the history, process. It has been decided that Honors courses need to provide “outlines of record” per Honors course—so those who teach honors courses need to prepare for that work. 

            Evidently, we offer “degrees with emphasis.” These areas will need to make anticipatory additions and changes. Some faculty will need help with this, and Diana and her crew are here to provide it. (She also made a call for help in this regard. Anyone willing to help?) 

            Said Diana, there’s a “buttload” of courses that need to go through revision and review. The Tech Review people desperately need someone from Humanities and Languages to help out (she said, I think). Tech Review meetings are on Friday mornings, 8:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. 

            Tracy F got all huffy like she does sometimes: who are these UC people to make all these demands! Harrumph! There were dark mutterings about UC and how “they do what they want, they dictate.” That’s just what they do. Deal with it, said the wise and old among us. Tracy was undaunted, commencing a war dance (with whooping)  in the middle of the room.

            Somebody said something about Distance Ed. I dunno.

            Item 7 was the ongoing Board Policy review process. Tracy zeroed in on BP 180—the proposed board policy on “civility.” You’ll recall that, early on, Prez Roquemore seemed to be moving forward on a truly obnoxious policy on civility—a threat to anyone who gives a damn about academic freedom. 

            Eventually, some district group came up with a proposal, but it did not pass muster with the IVC Academic Senate (last Fall? Spring?).  That awakened the SC Ac. Senate from its dogmatic slumbers, and so they nixed it as well. That sent Chancellor Gary Poertner into paroxysms of fear and loathing. From his POV, the Accred Monster demands a civility policy and so, goddamit, he’s gonna give ‘em one, dagnabit. Gary had difficulty seeing the point of our objection, namely, that the policy seemed to be a precursor to an Administrative Regulation—that would permit discipline of faculty and other employees re “incivility.” Who’s to judge what is or is not civil? But Gary thinks: hey, this is just a statement of our sensibility. We like civility and puppies and kittens, is all.

            Kathy S somehow convinced the P man to soften the policy, and so now a paragraph is tacked on that says something like: yeah, the district “fosters” civility, but that doesn’t mean that we’ll do anything to retaliate against somebody or threaten academic freedom and free speech. No sir, not us boy.

            But Tracy reared up again, and whinnied most loudly. I could see her point. I offered a massive scattershot assault on the policy, complained that it would “get an F” in any of our Writing courses. (Hope that’s true. Dunno.) What do they mean by “foster” anyway? Etc. Everybody seemed to be in the spirit. 

            So we separated 180 from all the other policies. We offered our “okey-dokey” on all of them but 180. 8 voted against 180; 2 in favor; there were 12 abstentions (blatant woosery). 

            The Accreditation midterm draft is ready; be sure to read it and offer your 2 cents. “Please read it,” said Kathy.

            We briefly discussed a proposed anti-smoke policy. Everybody seemed on board with that. SOCCCD needs to get with the program, said everyone, even Republicans.

            Kathy mentioned the planning and decision-making manual.  There’s a draft. Did we want to approve it? This is more substantial than it seems; it actually concerns our governance model—how all those boxes interrelate with arrows and squiggles and such. I once again expressed sour skepticism about this whole scheme. “Burn it all down, start fresh,” I said. But the changes improve things, said Kathy. In the end, we voted 20-0-2. I was one of the 2. Shoulda voted against it.

            Once again, we have $60K to burn for professional development. The Ac. Affairs committee recommended a limit of $1400 for full-timers and $700 for part-timers. I sure had my reservations about that, but we approved that.

            You’ll recall that there’s an ongoing pissing contest between the two colleges (actually, the two Presidents) regarding “service areas.” Since way back, it has been understood that SC “services” everything south of El Toro Rd. and IVC “services” everything north of El Toro. The agenda explained that:

President Schmeidler will present this DRAFT MOU that was prepared over two years, mostly by the VPI’s at each campus. The MOU prescribes the functional relationship between SC and IVC in regard to service areas. The College Presidents would appreciate review and comment by each Academic Senate.

            You’ll recall that the SC Academic Senate has opined in this matter, and they seem to be critical of the old understanding, seek to modify it. We all need to read their statement (trust me, you’ll hate it).

            The “wait list” initiative is going forward. It will deal with various problems regarding wait lists at the start of the semester. 

            That was about it.

--Senator Roy